Supreme Court: The present appeal arises from the Judgment and Order dated 18-2-2016 (‘impugned judgment’) passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction passed by the Trial Court, was dismissed. The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., stated that only because the firearm alleged to have been used and fired by the appellant, was not recovered or discovered, at any point of time during the investigation, would not render the ocular version of the two eyewitnesses, doubtful. The Court opined that the Trial Court and the High Court had well appreciated the oral version of the two eyewitnesses and thus dismissed the appeal.
The Court expressed concern over the delay by the High Court in the present case, in uploading the judgment after 2 years and 5 months. The Court thus reiterated the directions issued in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 (‘Anil Rai Case’) in relation to the delay in uploading the reasoned order by the High Court, after the operative part of the judgment was pronounced.
Background
In the present case, a FIR was registered on 22-7-1998 by an injured eyewitness for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, respectively. After completion of the investigation, three people were arrested, and a charge sheet was filed for the said offences. The Trial Court held the appellant and one other co-accused person guilty of the alleged offence of murder and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. One of the co-accused persons absconded, so his trial was separated, and the remaining three co-accused persons were acquitted of all the charges. Being dissatisfied with the Trial Court’s order, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court. The appeal was later dismissed by the High Court, thereby affirming the Trial Court’s judgment and order of conviction. Thus, the appellant was before this Court.
The appellant contended that the impugned Judgment deserved to be set aside because although the judgment’s operative part was pronounced on 18-2-2016, yet the main judgment was uploaded after a period of 2 years and 5 months, causing grave prejudice to him. He also contended that though he was named in the FIR and the prosecution’s case was that a particular overt act was attributed by the two eyewitnesses that he had a firearm in his hand, and he fired a shot, then in such circumstances the said firearm should have been produced so that it could have been sent to the ballistic expert for his report. Thus, as there was no discovery or recovery of any firearm, he should not be held guilty of the alleged offence and the matter be remanded to the High Court for fresh hearing of the appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the Trial Court and the High Court had well appreciated the oral version of the two eyewitnesses in its true perspective, and there was no reason to disbelieve them. The appreciation of ocular evidence was a hard task, and there was no strait jacket formula for it.
To assess the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations were (a) whether, in the circumstances of the case, it was possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them; and (b) whether there was anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence.
The Court stated that only because the firearm alleged to have been used and fired by the appellant was not recovered or discovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, at any point of time during the investigation, would not render the ocular version of the two eyewitnesses, doubtful. Discovery or recovery of the weapon, if any, could be brought in aid of the other evidence at the time of trial.
The Court also opined that the delay by the High Court in uploading the judgment after 2 years and 5 months was a matter of grave concern. The Court concluded that despite there being a delay of 2 years and 5 months in uploading the judgment, the oral testimony of the two eyewitnesses inspired confidence, and it could not be rendered doubtful.
The Court stated that it was the practice of few High Courts to pronounce the operative part of the order without the reasoned judgment and after a substantial length of time, the reasoned judgment was uploaded. This practice deprived the aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal, more particularly in criminal matters wherein the appeal was dismissed affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
The Court relied on Anil Rai Case, wherein this Court had taken serious cognizance of the said practice, issued certain guidelines related to it and had stated that “Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment.”.
The Court dismissed the appeal, reiterated the directions issued in Anil Rai Case (supra) and hoped that it might not have to come across any matter wherein there was a delay at the High Court’s end in uploading the reasoned order more particularly after the operative part of the judgment was pronounced.
[Rajan v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 3904 of 2025, decided on 2-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Sanjay Jain, AOR
For the Respondent: Samar Vijay Singh, AOR
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
